CCC
Community
Risk
Ranking:
Child Well-being
in New York City’s
59 Community
Districts
We educate and mobilize New Yorkers
to make the city a better place for children.
Our advocacy combines public policy research
and data analysis with citizen action. We cast
light on the issues, educate the public, engage
allies, and identify and promote practical
solutions to ensure that every New York City
child is healthy, housed, educated and safe.
For more information about CCC, visit
www.cccnewyork.org.
Published February 2015
It has been more than 20 years since CCC first began
collecting and compiling data on the well-being of children
in New York City. Since the beginning, CCC’s community risk
rankings have been an important and unique aspect of our
Keeping Track data program.
Research tells us that
multiple risk factors have
cumulative negative effects
on child development
and well-being.
Our community risk ranking combines data from
across multiple dimensions of child well-being—
economic security, health, housing, education, issues
specific to teens and youths, and family and community—
to provide us with a better understanding of where risks
to child well-being concentrate within our diverse city.
This year CCC has refined the methodology for our
community risk ranking to make it clearer and easier to
understand, more easily replicable, and comparable over
time. Our new methodology draws from research and best
practices for social indicators and composite index creation,
as well as our own unique understanding of children’s
issues and child well-being in New York City.
CCC’s community risk ranking is comprised of 18
indicators within six domains of child well-being.
We use these data to rank New York City’s 59
community districts (CDs)—within each domain
and overall—from lowest risk to highest risk.
The community risk ranking highlights the vast
disparities in well-being across our city. For example, at 59.3%, the 2012 child poverty rate in
Hunts Point (B02)—the highest risk community
district overall in our ranking—is more than nine
times the 6.5% child poverty rate in the lowest
risk community—Battery Park/Tribeca (M01).
The ranking also illustrates how risks are interrelated. Examining the data for Hunts Point
(B02), the highest risk community, reveals that
not only does that community have the highest
child poverty rate in the city (59.3%), but also
the highest rate of adults with less than a high
school diploma (45.2%), the lowest rate of ontime high school graduation (32.9%), the second-highest infant mortality rate (8.7), and the
second-highest rate of families entering homeless shelter (8.7 per 1,000 households).
In practice, the overall risk ranking can help to
determine where additional resources, supports,
or services are needed to improve outcomes for
children. Further, the individual domain rankings
can help to identify what issues must be tackled
in which communities. For example, Borough Park
(K12) ranks lowest of all the communities in the
health domain, but its relatively higher risk in
the domains of economic security, housing, and
education reveal that investments in these areas
could go a long way toward improving outcomes
for children and families.
We hope that our updated community risk
ranking will help families, elected officials, policy-makers, researchers, foundation and corporate program officers, and New Yorkers at large
better understand the needs of the communities
in which they live, work, and serve, so that they
may advocate for the resources necessary to
make New York City a better place for every child.
Community Risk Ranking
Domains and Indicators
▼ ECONOMIC SECURITY ▼
Child Poverty Rate
Median Income for
Families with Children
Parental Employment Instability
▼ HOUSING ▼
Rent Burden
Rental Overcrowding
Families Entering
Homeless Shelters
▼ HEALTH ▼
Infant Mortality Rate
Low Birth Weight Babies
Children without
Health Insurance
▼ EDUCATION ▼
Early Education Enrollment
Elementary and Middle School
Reading and Math Test Pass Rate
High School Graduation Rate
▼ YOUTH ▼
Teen Birth Rate
Teen Idleness
Youth Unemployment
▼ FAMILY & COMMUNITY ▼
Children in Single-Parent Families
Adult Educational Attainment
Violent Felony Rate
To explore these and other indicators of child well-being in New York City, visit data.cccnewyork.org.
Overall Risk Ranking
Ranking by CD
▼
lowest risk
▼
1 Battery Park/Tribeca
2 Upper East Side
3 Greenwich Village
4Bayside
5 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant
6 Upper West Side
7Tottenville
8 Park Slope
9Chelsea/Clinton
▼
moderate low risk
(M01)
(M08)
(M02)
(Q11)
(M06)
(M07)
(S03)
(K06)
(M04)
▼
10 Midtown Business Dist. (M05)
11 South Beach
(S02)
12 Rego Park/Forest Hills (Q06)
13Sunnyside/Woodside (Q02)
14 Sheepshead Bay
(K15)
15 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08)
16 Bay Ridge
(K10)
17 Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02)
18Bensonhurst
(K11)
19Astoria
(Q01)
20 Lower East Side (M03)
▼
medium risk
CCC’s community risk ranking provides
a composite picture of the concentration
of risks to child well-being among New
York City’s 59 community districts (CDs).
This measure combines all six domains
of child well-being.
level of risk
n Lowest Risk
n Moderate Low Risk
n Medium Risk
n Moderate High Risk
n Highest Risk
B02
▼
21Flushing
(Q07)
22Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05)
23Riverdale
(B08)
24 Borough Park
(K12)
25 Queens Village
(Q13)
26 Williamsburg/Greenpoint(K01)
27Woodhaven
(Q09)
28 Howard Beach
(Q10)
29 Throgs Neck
(B10)
30 Crown Heights South
(K09)
31Canarsie
(K18)
32 Coney Island
(K13)
33 The Rockaways
(Q14)
34Manhattanville
(M09)
35Flatbush/Midwood
(K14)
36 St. George
(S01)
37 Pelham Parkway
(B11)
38 Jackson Heights
(Q03)
39Elmhurst/Corona
(Q04)
40 Sunset Park
(K07)
41 East Flatbush
(K17)
Battery Park/Tribeca
(M01)
lowest risk community
highest risk community
moderate high risk
domain rankings
domain rankings
▼
42 East Harlem
43 Crown Heights North
44 Jamaica/St. Albans
45 Washington Heights
46Williamsbridge
47 Central Harlem
48Bushwick
49Unionport/Soundview
50 Bedford Stuyvesant
51 Bedford Park
52 East New York
▼
highest risk
▼
(M11)
(K08)
(Q12)
(M12)
(B12)
(M10)
(K04)
(B09)
(K03)
(B07)
(K05)
▼
53Brownsville
54Concourse/Highbridge
55 University Heights
56Morrisania
57 Mott Haven
58 East Tremont
59 Hunts Point
(K16)
(B04)
(B05)
(B03)
(B01)
(B06)
(B02)
M01
Hunts Point
(B02)
economic
security
housing
economic
security
housing
health
education
health
education
youth
family &
community
youth
family &
community
2 6 59 55
2 1 50 59
1 2 59 59
Economic Security
Ranking by CD
▼
lowest risk ▼
1
2
2
4
4
6
7
8
Upper East Side Battery Park/Tribeca Greenwich Village Chelsea/Clinton Midtown Business Dist. Upper West Side South Beach Tottenville 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Murray Hill/Stuyvesant Bayside Park Slope Rego Park/Forest Hills Fresh Mdws/Briarwood Queens Village Flushing Canarsie Bay Ridge 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Sunnyside/Woodside Howard Beach Ridgewood/Glendale Flatbush/Midwood Throgs Neck Woodhaven Astoria Sheepshead Bay Crown Heights South Bensonhurst Pelham Parkway St. George Jamaica/St. Albans East Flatbush The Rockaways Riverdale Coney Island 35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Elmhurst/Corona (Q04)
Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02)
Williamsbridge (B12)
Crown Heights North (K08)
Jackson Heights (Q03)
Washington Heights (M12)
Lower East Side (M03)
East New York (K05)
Borough Park (K12)
Central Harlem (M10)
Bedford Park (B07)
Sunset Park (K07)
Bushwick (K04)
Manhattanville (M09)
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
55
57
58
58
Unionport/Soundview (B09)
East Harlem (M11)
Brownsville (K16)
Bedford Stuyvesant (K03)
Concourse/Highbridge (B04)
University Heights (B05)
Morrisania (B03)
East Tremont (B06)
Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01)
Mott Haven (B01)
Hunts Point (B02)
▼
moderate low risk ▼
▼
▼
(M08)
(M01)
(M02)
(M04)
(M05)
(M07)
(S02)
(S03)
(M06)
(Q11)
(K06)
(Q06)
(Q08)
(Q13)
(Q07)
(K18)
(K10)
medium risk ▼
Children’s well-being is inextricably linked
with the economic security of their families
and communities. This domain illustrates
whether children live in households and
communities where resources are adequate
to meet their basic material needs.
Indicators: Child Poverty, Median Household Income for Families with Children,
Parental Employment Instability
level of risk
n Lowest Risk
n Moderate Low Risk
n Medium Risk
n Moderate High Risk
n Highest Risk
B01B02
(Q02)
(Q10)
(Q05)
(K14)
(B10)
(Q09)
(Q01)
(K15)
(K09)
(K11)
(B11)
(S01)
(Q12)
(K17)
(Q14)
(B08)
(K13)
M08
moderate high risk ▼
▼
highest risk ▼
lowest risk community
highest risk community
Upper East Side
(M08)
Mott Haven (B01)/
Hunts Point (B02)
child poverty rate
child poverty rate
median income, families w/ children
median income, families w/ children
parental employment instability
parental employment instability
59.3%
8.2%
$212,276 $19,570
55.4%
15.7%
race/ethnicity
n Asian n Black n Latino n White
Upper East Side
Citywide
Mott Haven/Hunts Point
Housing
Ranking by CD
▼
1
2
3
4
5
6
4
8
9
10
11
12
Upper East Side (M08)
Murray Hill/Stuyvesant (M06)
Park Slope (K06)
Chelsea/Clinton (M04)
Greenwich Village (M02)
Battery Park/Tribeca (M01)
Midtown Business Dist. (M05)
Upper West Side (M07)
Tottenville (S03)
Astoria (Q01)
Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02)
Bayside (Q11)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Throgs Neck (B10)
Lower East Side (M03)
South Beach (S02)
Rego Park/Forest Hills (Q06)
Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05)
Sheepshead Bay (K15)
Queens Village (Q13)
Williamsburg/Greenpoint (K01)
Riverdale (B08)
Coney Island (K13)
East Harlem (M11)
Central Harlem (M10)
Manhattanville (M09)
The Rockaways (Q14)
Crown Heights North (K08)
Bensonhurst (K11)
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Fresh Mdws/Briarwood Bay Ridge Howard Beach Pelham Parkway St. George Flushing Washington Heights Crown Heights South Sunnyside/Woodside Woodhaven Flatbush/Midwood Bedford Stuyvesant East Flatbush Canarsie Williamsbridge 44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Brownsville Unionport/Soundview Elmhurst/Corona Jamaica/St. Albans Jackson Heights Bushwick Mott Haven Borough Park Sunset Park Bedford Park East New York Hunts Point 56
57
58
59
Morrisania Concourse/Highbridge East Tremont University Heights ▼
moderate low risk ▼
▼
▼
*per 1,000 households
lowest risk ▼
Indicators: Rent Burden, Rental Overcrowding,
Families Entering Homeless Shelters
level of risk
n Lowest Risk
n Moderate Low Risk
n Medium Risk
n Moderate High Risk
n Highest Risk
B05
M08
medium risk ▼
(Q08)
(K10)
(Q10)
(B11)
(S01)
(Q07)
(M12)
(K09)
(Q02)
(Q09)
(K14)
(K03)
(K17)
(K18)
(B12)
moderate high risk ▼
▼
A safe and stable home environment
is key to children’s healthy development.
The housing domain contains indicators
that measure housing affordability, conditions, and stability within a community.
(K16)
(B09)
(Q04)
(Q12)
(Q03)
(K04)
(B01)
(K12)
(K07)
(B07)
(K05)
(B02)
lowest risk community
highest risk community
Upper East Side
(M08)
University Heights
(B05)
rent burden
rent burden
16.6%
3.1%
0.0
rental overcrowding
43.4%
18.2%
5.3
rental overcrowding
families entering homeless shelters*
families entering homeless shelters*
race/ethnicity
n Asian n Black n Latino n White
highest risk ▼
(B03)
(B04)
(B06)
(B05)
Upper East Side
Citywide
University Heights
Health
Ranking by CD
▼
lowest risk ▼
1 Borough Park
(K12)
2 Battery Park/Tribeca
(M01)
3 Sunset Park
(K07)
4 Park Slope
(K06)
5 Greenwich Village
(M02)
6Bayside
(Q11)
7 Williamsburg/Greenpoint(K01)
8 Sheepshead Bay
(K15)
9Sunnyside/Woodside (Q02)
10 Lower East Side (M03)
11 Rego Park/Forest Hills (Q06)
▼
▼
(Q04)
(M09)
(B11)
(S01)
(K13)
(Q14)
(B05)
(Q07)
(B10)
(Q10)
(M05)
(B09)
(B07)
(M12)
(B01)
(K03)
(B04)
(K18)
moderate high risk ▼
48Williamsbridge
49 East Harlem
50 Hunts Point
51Morrisania
52 Crown Heights North
53 East New York
▼
level of risk
n Lowest Risk
n Moderate Low Risk
n Medium Risk
B06
n Moderate High Risk
n Highest Risk
K12
K12
medium risk ▼
30Elmhurst/Corona
31Manhattanville
32 Pelham Parkway
33 St. George
34 Coney Island
35 The Rockaways
36 University Heights
37Flushing
38 Throgs Neck
39 Howard Beach
40 Midtown Business Dist.
41Unionport/Soundview
42 Bedford Park
43 Washington Heights
44 Mott Haven
45 Bedford Stuyvesant
46Concourse/Highbridge
47Canarsie
*per 1,000 live births
Indicators: Infant Mortality Rate, Low Birth Weight Babies,
Children without Health Insurance
moderate low risk ▼
12 Upper East Side
(M08)
13 Bay Ridge
(K10)
14Bensonhurst
(K11)
15 Upper West Side
(M07)
16 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant (M06)
17Tottenville
(S03)
18Riverdale
(B08)
19 Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02)
20 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08)
21 Crown Heights South
(K09)
22Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05)
23Astoria
(Q01)
24 South Beach
(S02)
25 Jackson Heights
(Q03)
26Woodhaven
(Q09)
27Bushwick
(K04)
28Chelsea/Clinton
(M04)
29Flatbush/Midwood
(K14)
▼
A child’s physical, mental, and emotional
health is critical to her overall well-being.
The health domain contains indicators that
reflect both health outcomes for children
and the adequacy of a community’s
healthcare environment.
(B12)
(M11)
(B02)
(B03)
(K08)
(K05)
highest risk ▼
54 East Flatbush
55Brownsville
56 Jamaica/St. Albans
57 Central Harlem
58 Queens Village
59 East Tremont
(K17)
(K16)
(Q12)
(M10)
(Q13)
(B06)
lowest risk community
highest risk community
Borough Park
(K12)
East Tremont
(B06)
infant mortality rate*
infant mortality rate*
low birth weight babies
low birth weight babies
children without health insurance
children without health insurance
2.0
5.9%
1%
race/ethnicity
9.0
11.7%
6%
n Asian n Black n Latino n White
Borough Park
Citywide
East Tremont
Education
Ranking by CD
▼
lowest risk ▼
1 Battery Park/Tribeca 2Bayside
3 Upper West Side
4 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant
5 Upper East Side
6 Rego Park/Forest Hills
▼
(M01)
(Q11)
(M07)
(M06)
(M08)
(Q06)
moderate low risk ▼
7 Greenwich Village
(M02)
8Chelsea/Clinton
(M04)
9 Midtown Business Dist. (M05)
10Tottenville
(S03)
11 Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02)
12 Park Slope
(K06)
13Sunnyside/Woodside (Q02)
14 South Beach
(S02)
15 Lower East Side (M03)
16 Williamsburg/Greenpoint(K01)
▼
medium risk ▼
17 Bay Ridge
(K10)
20 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08)
19 Sheepshead Bay
(K15)
20Bensonhurst
(K11)
21 Crown Heights South
(K09)
22Astoria
(Q01)
23Flatbush/Midwood
(K14)
24 East Harlem
(M11)
25 Jackson Heights
(Q03)
26 East Flatbush
(K17)
27 Coney Island
(K13)
28Riverdale
(B08)
29 The Rockaways
(Q14)
30 Queens Village
(Q13)
31Flushing
(Q07)
32Manhattanville
(M09)
33Woodhaven
(Q09)
34 Borough Park
(K12)
35Canarsie
(K18)
▼
Quality educational programming is
critical for children’s academic and social
development. The indicators in the education
domain provide information on programs
along the developmental continuum from
early education to high school completion.
Indicators: Early Education Enrollment, Elementary and Middle School Reading
and Math Test Pass Rate, High School Graduation Rate
level of risk
n Lowest Risk
n Moderate Low Risk
n Medium Risk
B06
n Moderate High Risk
n Highest Risk
B02
M01
K12
moderate high risk ▼
36Elmhurst/Corona
37 Jamaica/St. Albans
38 Howard Beach
39 Sunset Park
40 University Heights
41 Crown Heights North
42 Central Harlem
43 Throgs Neck
44 St. George
45 Pelham Parkway
46 East New York
47Williamsbridge
48Ridgewood/Glendale
49 Washington Heights
50 Bedford Park
51 Bedford Stuyvesant
52Morrisania
▼
(Q04)
(Q12)
(Q10)
(K07)
(B05)
(K08)
(M10)
(B10)
(S01)
(B11)
(K05)
(B12)
(Q05)
(M12)
(B07)
(K03)
(B03)
highest risk ▼
53Bushwick
54Brownsville
55 East Tremont
56 Mott Haven
57Concourse/Highbridge
58Unionport/Soundview
59 Hunts Point
(K04)
(K16)
(B06)
(B01)
(B04)
(B09)
(B02)
lowest risk community
highest risk community
Battery Park/Tribeca
(M01)
Hunts Point
(B02)
early education enrollment
early education enrollment
elementary and middle school
reading and math test pass rate
elementary and middle school
reading and math test pass rate
high school graduation rate
high school graduation rate
87.3%
80.1%
78.5%
race/ethnicity
50.2%
34.3%
32.9%
n Asian n Black n Latino n White
Battery Park/Tribeca
Citywide
Hunts Point
Youth
Ranking by CD
▼
lowest risk ▼
1 Battery Park/Tribeca
2 Greenwich Village
3Bayside
4 Upper East Side
5 Midtown Business Dist.
6Chelsea/Clinton
7 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant
8Tottenville
9Sunnyside/Woodside
10 South Beach
11Manhattanville
▼
(M01)
(M02)
(Q11)
(M08)
(M05)
(M04)
(M06)
(S03)
(Q02)
(S02)
(M09)
▼
*per 1,000 girls 16–19
moderate high risk ▼
46Unionport/Soundview
47Morrisania
48 Central Harlem
49Williamsbridge
50Concourse/Highbridge
51 East Tremont
52Flatbush/Midwood
53Brownsville
54 Bedford Stuyvesant
55 East New York
▼
level of risk
n Lowest Risk
n Moderate Low Risk
n Medium Risk
B06
n Moderate High Risk
n Highest Risk
B02
M01
medium risk ▼
28 Williamsburg/Greenpoint(K01)
29 The Rockaways
(Q14)
30 Jamaica/St. Albans
(Q12)
31 East Harlem
(M11)
32 Jackson Heights
(Q03)
33Astoria
(Q01)
34 East Flatbush
(K17)
35 Crown Heights South
(K09)
36 St. George
(S01)
37 Washington Heights
(M12)
38Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05)
39 Sunset Park
(K07)
40 Crown Heights North
(K08)
41 Pelham Parkway
(B11)
42Riverdale
(B08)
43 Throgs Neck
(B10)
44 Coney Island
(K13)
45Bushwick
(K04)
56
57
58
59
Indicators: Teen Birth Rate, Teen Idleness,
Youth Unemployment
moderate low risk ▼
12 Upper West Side
(M07)
13 Lower East Side (M03)
20 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood (Q08)
15 Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02)
16 Bay Ridge
(K10)
17 Queens Village
(Q13)
18 Park Slope
(K06)
19 Rego Park/Forest Hills (Q06)
20Flushing
(Q07)
21Canarsie
(K18)
22 Borough Park
(K12)
23Bensonhurst
(K11)
24Woodhaven
(Q09)
25Elmhurst/Corona
(Q04)
26 Sheepshead Bay
(K15)
27 Howard Beach
(Q10)
▼
The period between childhood and
adulthood presents a unique set of
challenges for young people and their
families. The youth domain focuses on
specific risks that children and youth
face as they transition to adulthood.
(B09)
(B03)
(M10)
(B12)
(B04)
(B06)
(K14)
(K16)
(K03)
(K05)
K12
lowest risk community
highest risk community
Battery Park/Tribeca
(M01)
Hunts Point
(B02)
teen birth rate*
teen birth rate*
0.0
3.0%
9.7%
teen idleness
41.3
21.5%
28.8%
teen idleness
youth unemployment
youth unemployment
race/ethnicity
n Asian n Black n Latino n White
highest risk ▼
Bedford Park
University Heights
Mott Haven
Hunts Point
(B07)
(B05)
(B01)
(B02)
Battery Park/Tribeca
Citywide
Hunts Point
Family & Community
Ranking by CD
▼
lowest risk ▼
1 Upper East Side
2 Battery Park/Tribeca
3Tottenville
4Bayside
5 South Beach
6 Rego Park/Forest Hills
7 Upper West Side
8 Fresh Mdws/Briarwood
9 Murray Hill/Stuyvesant
10 Sheepshead Bay
11 Greenwich Village
12 Borough Park
13 Bay Ridge
14 Park Slope
▼
(M08)
(M01)
(S03)
(Q11)
(S02)
(Q06)
(M07)
(Q08)
(M06)
(K15)
(M02)
(K12)
(K10)
(K06)
moderate low risk ▼
15Flushing
(Q07)
16 Midtown Business Dist. (M05)
17Bensonhurst
(K11)
18Sunnyside/Woodside (Q02)
19Chelsea/Clinton
(M04)
20 Queens Village
(Q13)
21 Williamsburg/Greenpoint(K01)
22Ridgewood/Glendale (Q05)
23Flatbush/Midwood
(K14)
24Canarsie
(K18)
25 Coney Island
(K13)
26Astoria
(Q01)
27 Howard Beach
(Q10)
28 Throgs Neck
(B10)
29 St. George
(S01)
30 Fort Greene/Brooklyn Hts (K02)
31Riverdale
(B08)
32Woodhaven
(Q09)
▼
*per 1,000 residents
(B11)
(Q14)
(K09)
(Q03)
(M03)
(M09)
(K07)
(Q12)
(K17)
(Q04)
(K08)
(M12)
(B12)
(M10)
moderate high risk ▼
47 Bedford Park
48Unionport/Soundview
49 Bedford Stuyvesant
50 East Harlem
51 East New York
52 University Heights
53Concourse/Highbridge
54Bushwick
55Brownsville
56Morrisania
▼
Indicators: Children in Single-Parent Families, Adult Educational Attainment,
Violent Felony Rate
level of risk
n Lowest Risk
n Moderate Low Risk
n Medium Risk
B06
n Moderate High Risk
n Highest Risk
B02
M08
K12
medium risk ▼
33 Pelham Parkway
34 The Rockaways
35 Crown Heights South
36 Jackson Heights
37 Lower East Side 38Manhattanville
39 Sunset Park
40 Jamaica/St. Albans
41 East Flatbush
42Elmhurst/Corona
43 Crown Heights North
44 Washington Heights
45Williamsbridge
46 Central Harlem
▼
Children’s development is greatly
influenced by the families and communities
that surround them. The indicators in the
family and community domain capture
some of these additional influences that
are not included in other domains.
(B07)
(B09)
(K03)
(M11)
(K05)
(B05)
(B04)
(K04)
(K16)
(B03)
lowest risk community
highest risk community
Upper East Side
(M08)
Hunts Point
(B02)
children in single-parent families
children in single-parent families
adult educational attainment
adult educational attainment
violent felony rate*
violent felony rate*
14.1%
2.5%
1.2
race/ethnicity
75.5%
45.2%
15.7
n Asian n Black n Latino n White
highest risk ▼
57 East Tremont
58 Mott Haven
59 Hunts Point
(B06)
(B01)
(B02)
Upper East Side
Citywide
Hunts Point
Notes on Methodology,
Indicator Definitions,
and Sources
Indicator Criteria
CCC based the following indicator criteria on best practices for composite
well-being index construction as determined by a review of major social
indicator-based well-being indices and other social indicator literature,
combined with CCC’s institutional knowledge of the unique issues with
respect to child well-being in New York City. See references for more
information on other well-being indices.
• Data must be from a reliable source
• Data must be reliable and comparable at the NYC community
district, borough, and city levels
• Data should be available on an annual basis with a reasonable
assumption that it will be available (and comparable) in the future
• Indicators should include measurements of well-being for children,
families, and the communities in which they live
• All stages of child and youth development should be represented,
as well as the conditions that may affect children and youth in those
various stages
• Indicators should be easily understandable and replicable
• Indicators should be normalized, i.e. data should be presented
as percentages, rates, etc. which take into account variations in
population sizes across geographies
• Disaggregation of indicators by racial/ethnic group at the citywide
level is preferred for further citywide analysis, but not a mandatory
condition for selection
• Comparability to states, other large U.S. cities, and the nation is
preferred for further comparison purposes, but not a mandatory
condition for selection
Indicator Definitions,
Notes, and Sources
Below is a detailed description and source information for the indicators
included in the CCC community risk ranking, grouped by domain. Indicators that are presented as rates per population base are calculated using
population data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey 1-Year Estimates, unless otherwise stated.
Best efforts were made to collect data from roughly the same time
period in order to provide a “snapshot” of risks to child well-being at
a given point in time. Data presented in this report are primarily from
calendar year 2012. For some indicators, where sample sizes or numbers
of events were small, data from the three-year period 2010-2012 were
used to provide more reliable estimates or datapoints. Such instances
are noted below. Educational outcome data are for the 2012 school year,
rather than the calendar year 2012.
Economic
Conditions
Child Poverty Rate—The share of
children who live in households with
incomes below the federal poverty
level. At the heart of understanding the economic conditions faced
by New York City’s children and
families is whether children live in
households with enough resources
to provide the basic necessities.
While not a perfect metric, the
poverty rate as measured by federal
poverty level provides a reliable and
consistent indicator of income adequacy that is available at a variety
of geographic levels and disaggregated by racial and ethnic groups.
Child poverty rates are available
through the Census Bureau at a
variety of geographic levels and
disaggregated by racial and ethnic
groups. Source: U.S. Census Bureau,
American Community Survey 1-Year
Estimates (2012), Summary Table
S1701. http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Median Income for Families
with Children—The median annual
income for families with children.
Median income provides another
reliable and consistent measure of
family resources. This measure gives
us a deeper understanding of family
resources than the child poverty
rate alone: the child poverty rate
just measures how many children
are in households with inadequate
incomes, while median income
allows us to take into account the
various levels of income across the
city (both above and below specified
federal poverty levels). Median
incomes are available through
the Census Bureau at a variety of
geographic levels and disaggregated
by racial and ethnic groups. Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, American
Community Survey 1-Year Estimates
(2012), Summary Table S1903.
http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Parental Employment Instability—The share of children living
in families where no custodial parent worked full-time in the last year.
The parental employment instability
measure adds yet another layer to
our understanding of the economic
conditions faced by families with
children. Even if they earned a reasonable income, families with unstable employment situations may
face additional economic stressors,
such as the need to find additional
(supplemental or new) employment
and the lack of stabilizing benefits like employer-provided health
insurance and sick leave. Information on parental employment status
is available through the Census
Bureau at a variety of geographic
levels and disaggregated by racial
and ethnic groups. Source: U.S.
Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates (2012),
Public Use Microdata Sample File.
http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Health
Infant Mortality Rate—The number
of babies who died within one year
of birth per 1,000 babies born in
that year. The infant mortality rate
is widely used as a proxy for the
overall health and well-being of a
given geographic area. High infant
mortality rates often signal problems in healthcare provision and
access, while low infant mortality
rates suggest that quality medical
care is both available and accessed
by residents of a given area. Local
infant mortality rates for New York
City are available through the City
Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene. Because of small numbers
of events in some geographies,
3-year averages are used. Infant
mortality data can be disaggregated
by racial and ethnic groups. Nationally, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention provides statistics at
the state and local levels on infant
mortality rates. Source: New York
City Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene, Bureau of Vital
Statistics, Birth and Death files,
3-year data averages (2010-2012).
Low Birth Weight Babies—
The share of babies born weighing less than 2,500 grams. This
indicator quantifies a major risk
factor that is measurable at birth.
Like the infant mortality rate, this
measure may reflect the quality and
accessibility to medical (especially prenatal) care for a particular
population. But it also indicates
how many babies may be at risk for
other medical problems both during
infancy and throughout their development. Local statistics on low birth
weight babies for New York City are
available through the City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
and can be disaggregated by racial
and ethnic groups. Nationally, the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention provides statistics at the
state and local levels on the prevalence of low birth weight babies.
Source: New York City Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene,
Bureau of Vital Statistics, Birth
and Death files (2012).
Children without Health
Insurance—The share of children
who do not have health insurance.
This indicator provides a reasonable
estimation of how many children do
not have affordable access to health
care. Since 2008, health insurance
coverage has been reported by the
Census Bureau at a variety of geographic levels and disaggregated
by racial and ethnic groups. Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, American
Community Survey 1-Year Estimates
(2012), Summary Table B27001.
http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Housing
Rent Burden—The share of
households that spend more
than 50 percent of their annual
income on housing costs. While
imperfect, this measure provides an
estimation of housing affordability
within communities. Households
that spend more than half of their
income on housing costs may be
at risk of losing their housing
because it is (or may become)
unaffordable. Data on housing
costs and household income come
from the Census Bureau and are
available at a variety of geographic
levels and disaggregated by racial
and ethnic groups. Source: U.S.
Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates (2012),
Summary Table B25070.
http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Rental Overcrowding—The share
of occupied rental housing units
that have more than one person per
room. This indicator provides an approximation of the living conditions
in a community’s rental housing.
Crowded conditions with little room
for privacy may create stress for
families and children. Rental overcrowding may also suggest greater
housing instability, as families settle
for housing that is not sufficient for
their needs or double up with other
families to afford housing costs. Data
on housing conditions and occupancy come from the Census Bureau
and are available at a variety of geographic levels and disaggregated by
racial and ethnic groups. Source: U.S.
Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates (2012),
Summary Table B25014. http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Families Entering Homeless
Shelters—The number of families
entering Department of Homeless
Services family shelters per 1,000
households. Another measure of
housing instability, this indicator
tells us how many families have
actually lost their homes and entered an emergency shelter. The City
Department of Homeless Services
tracks homeless families by origin,
as well as by racial and ethnic
group. Data on entries to homeless shelters for other geographies
outside of New York City may be
available from other local agencies, although comparability may
be an issue. Source: New York City
Department of Homeless Services,
unpublished data (fiscal year 2012).
Education
Early Education Enrollment—
The share of 3- and 4-year-olds
enrolled in early education programs (may include public or private
pre-school or nursery school or
child care programs). More and
more research suggests that early
education is critical to a child’s longterm academic success. Educational
enrollment data come from the
Census Bureau and are available
at a variety of geographic levels
and disaggregated by racial and
ethnic groups. Source: U.S. Census
Bureau, American Community
Survey 3-Year Estimates (2010-2012),
Public Use Microdata Sample File.
http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Elementary and Middle School
Reading and Math Test Pass Rate—
The share of public school children
in grades 3 through 8 who pass New
York State reading (English Language
Arts or ELA) and math tests. Results
of the state standardized reading
and math tests, released annually
by the New York City Department of
Education (DOE), provide a performance benchmark for public elementary and middle school students
that can be compared across geographies and demographic groups
and over time. CCC used school-level results to aggregate data to the
community-district level. New York
City’s elementary and middle school
test results are comparable to other
New York State geographies. Nationally, elementary and middle school
test results are available through
individual school districts as well
as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), although
comparability may be limited.
Source: New York City Department of
Education, New York State English
Language Arts & Mathematics Tests
Grades 3-8 School-Level Results
(SY2012). http://schools.nyc.gov/
Accountability/data/TestResults/
ELAandMathTestResults.
High School Graduation Rate—
The percentage of the cohort of
public school students who entered
9th grade in a given year that
graduated within four years (as of
June). The high school graduation
rate provides a benchmark for public
school students that is comparable
across geographies and demographic groups and over time, both within
New York City and in other parts of
the country. High school graduation
rates for city public school students
are reported annually by the New
York City DOE. CCC used school-level results to aggregate data to the
community-district level. In some
years some community districts had
no public high schools, and so there
are no graduation results for these
districts in these years; in these cases, borough graduation rates were
used. New York City’s graduation
results are comparable to other New
York State geographies. Nationally,
graduation results are available
through individual school districts
as well as the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), although
comparability may be limited.
Source: New York City Department
of Education, Cohort Graduation
Outcomes (SY2012). http://schools.
nyc.gov/Accountability/data/GraduationDropoutReports/default.htm.
Youth
Teen Birth Rate—The number of
babies born to teenage girls (ages
16 to 19) per 1,000 teenage girls.
Teenage pregnancy and births present risks for both mother and baby
and also can reflect the presence
of other risky behavior in teens, like
unprotected sexual activity. Data on
teen births are reported annually
by the City Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene through its Vital
Statistics program. Nationally, the
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention provides statistics at the
state and local levels on teen births.
Source: New York City Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene, Bureau
of Vital Statistics, Birth and Death
files (2012).
Teen Idleness—The share of
teenagers (ages 16 to 19) who are
not in school and not in the labor
force. These teens are sometimes
also called “disconnected youth,”
referring to a disconnection in the
transition from education to career
that should occur during this critical
time. Data on educational enrollment and labor force participation
are reported by the Census Bureau
and are available at a variety of
geographic levels and disaggregated
by racial and ethnic groups. Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, American
Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
(2010-2012), Public Use Microdata Sample File. http://factfinder.
census.gov/.
Youth Unemployment—The share
of young adults (ages 20 to 24) who
are unemployed (in the labor force
but not working). This indicator
provides additional information
about the critical stage where youth
transition to be self-sufficient and
productive adults. Young adults
must secure employment in order
to become financially self-sufficient
and also to build skills that will
lay the groundwork for successful
professional careers. A high youth
unemployment rate signals trouble
for both young adults and the
teens that will soon be entering the
labor market. Data on labor force
participation are reported by the
Census Bureau and are available at
a variety of geographic levels and
disaggregated by racial and ethnic
groups. Source: U.S. Census Bureau,
American Community Survey 3-Year
Estimates (2010-2012), Summary
Table C23001. http://factfinder.
census.gov/.
Family &
Community
Children in Single-Parent
Families—The share of children in
families headed by a single parent.
This indicator is common among
child well-being indices, as research
suggests that children growing up
in single-parent families may face
elevated risks of cognitive, emotional, and social problems during
their development. Single parents
may be stressed by the economic
hardship of raising a family on a
single income or the time constraints of balancing work, family,
and other commitments. Data on
family structure are reported by the
Census Bureau and are available at
a variety of geographic levels and
disaggregated by racial and ethnic
groups. Source: U.S. Census Bureau,
American Community Survey 3-Year
Estimates (2010-2012), Summary
Table B09005. http://factfinder.
census.gov/.
Adult Educational Attainment—
The share of adults ages 25 and
older who have less than a high
school diploma or equivalent
degree. This indicator serves as a
proxy for the intellectual capital
available in the community. Positive
role models who have achieved
academic and professional success
can have significant influence on
the children in their community.
Data on educational attainment are
reported by the Census Bureau and
are available at a variety of geographic levels and disaggregated
by racial and ethnic groups. Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, American
Community Survey 1-Year Estimates
(2012), Summary Table C15002.
http://factfinder.census.gov/.
Violent Felony Rate—The number
of violent felony crimes reported
per 1,000 residents. Children need
safe communities in which to play
and engage with the world around
them. Children living in communities
plagued with high crime rates may
have limited places to play outside
and may even face safety risks as
they travel from home to school.
Crimes are reported by police
precinct by the New York City Police
Department and CCC uses a population weighting formula to convert
police precinct data to community
district data. For racial and ethnic
group disaggregation at the city
level, arrests for violent felonies
may be used. Crime data are
available nationally from the FBI’s
Uniform Crime Reporting system, as
well as from local law enforcement
agencies, although comparability
may be an issue. Source: New York
City Police Department, CompStat
Crime Data (2012). http://www.nyc.
gov/html/nypd/html/crime_prevention/crime_statistics.shtml.
Composite
Index
Construction
References
Below is a list of the well-being
indices reviewed, followed by a list
of other resources referenced in
the development of the new CCC
community risk ranking.
Well-being Indices:
Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids
Count Index (2012-2014). http://
www.aecf.org/work/kids-count/.
Other References and Resources:
Aryeh, A. (2009). Indicators of
children’s well-being: Theory and
practice in a multi-cultural
perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.
Brown, B., & Moore, K. (2003).
Child and Youth Well-Being: The
Social Indicators Field. In Handbook
of Applied Developmental Science
(Vol. 1, pp. 437-467). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Colorado Children’s Campaign,
Colorado Child Well-being Index
(2012-2014). http://www.coloradokids.org/data/kidscount/well-being_index.html.
Land, K., Lamb, V., & Mustillo,
S. (2001). Child and Youth WellBeing in the United States, 19751998: Some Findings from a New
Index. Social Indicators Research,
56(3), 241-318.
Foundation for Child Development,
National and State Child Well-being
Index (2004-2013). http://fcd-us.
org/our-work/previous-initiatives/
child-well-being-index-cwi.
Land, K. (2012). The well-being of
America’s children: developing
and improving the child and youth
well-being index. Dordrecht:
Springer.
The 18 indicators are grouped within
six domains of well-being, with
three indicators in each domain.
Gallup Healthways, Well-Being
Index (2008-2014). http://info.
healthways.com/wellbeingindex.
Indicators in the risk ranking are
first standardized using Linear
Scaling Technique (LST), which
calculates the difference between
the value of a given Community
District and that of the lowest value
Community District, and divides this
number by the difference between
the highest value Community
District and the lowest value
Community District:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),
Better Life Index (2011-2014). http://
www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/.
Lippman, L. (2007). Indicators and
Indices of Child Well-Being: A Brief
American History. Social Indicators
Research, 83(1), 39-53.
CCC’s community risk ranking ranks
communities based on risk within
six domains of child well-being and
overall using a composite index of
18 indicators, as well as indices for
each of the six domains. The methodology for the construction of the
indices is described below.
Value-Min
Max-Min
Standardized values are then
adjusted so that they are all
scaled from low to high with regard
to increasing risks to well-being.
The standardized and scaled values
are then averaged within their
domains using equal weighting to
produce domain indices for each
Community District. The domains
indices are averaged using equal
weighting to produce an overall
index of risk to well-being for
each Community District.
Community Districts are then
ranked based on their domain index
and overall index values to identify
the highest and lowest levels of
risk. Community Districts are also
placed into one of five risk level
categories, for each domain and
overall, using equal intervals of
the raw index scores.
Unicef, Child Well-being in Rich
Countries (April 2013). http://
www.unicef.org/policyanalysis/index_68637.html.
Salzman, J. (2003). Methodological Choices Encountered in the
Construction of Composite Indices
of Economic and Social WellBeing. Center for the Study of
Living Standards.
U.S. Census Bureau, SIPP Child
Well-being Index (working, May
2012). https://www.census.gov/
hhes/socdemo/children/data/sipp/
Child_Well_Being_Index-FINAL.pdf.
Decode Inc., Youthful Cities (2014).
http://www.youthfulcities.com/.
14 Wall Street, Suite 4E
New York, NY 10005
(212) 673-1800
www.cccnewyork.org